ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Issue notice. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent takes notice. 4. We have perused the impugned order. The interim relief granted by the Division Bench in terms of clause (i) of paragraph 33 of the impugned order is very broadly worded. Prima facie, such a broad interim relief is not capable of being specifically implemented. The reason is that there is no clarity on the issue who will decide whether the contents are false, misleading and defamatory. Therefore, we stay the interim relief granted in terms of clause (i) of paragraph 33 of the impugned order. 5. We also stay clause (iii) of paragraph 33 of the impugned order. 6. We make it clear that pendency of this appeal will not operate as stay of the appeal pending before the Delhi High Court. 7. Before we part with this order, we want to take this Civil Appeal as an illustration and record our observations. We see growing tendency in the Supreme Court Bar to file bulky and long synopsis. Shockingly, we find that in many cases, in the synopsis, grounds of challenge are incorporated. Law is pleaded in the synopsis by quoting various decisions relied upon. There is also a tendency to file very bulky Special Leave Petitions by annexing documents which are not required. We deprecate this tendency. Many members of the Bar have forgotten the basic principle that law ought not to be pleaded. However, in Special Leave Petitions and counter affidavits, paragraphs after paragraphs of reported decisions are being quoted. The members of the Bar must remember that by filing bulky pleadings, one cannot improve merits of the case. In this case, even copies of some of the decisions of this Court are part of this appeal. The members of the Bar cannot indulge in such practices. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that in view of the observations made by this Court, the first respondent has no objection if the impugned orders dated 2nd April, 2025 and 8th April, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside by granting liberty to make a fresh application for grant of injunction limited to specific content and re-publication of the specific content. He makes this submission in the light of the prima facie observations made by us that the prayers made before the learned Single Judge were too wide and injunction granted by the High Court was not capable of being enforced. 9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and grant liberty to the first respondent to make a fresh application before the learned Single Judge for grant of appropriate interim injunction in respect of specific content and re-publication of the specific content appearing on the site of the appellant. If such an application is made, it will be independently decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observation made by this Court passed by us. 10. All contentions are left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly allowed. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association.